Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 14:00:55

jh, what are your thoughts on all this illegal torture we did and sanctioned?

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 14:08:48

pacino wrote:jh, what are your thoughts on all this freedom tickles we did and sanctioned?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 14:17:06

I am OK with the idea generally that we occasionally interrogate prisoners in a manner that steps over the line, but contradictorally uncomfortable with it being systematized/overseen/regularized while also being uncomfortable leaving it up to individual field officers to make determinations on its necessity. I don't think we should forswear its use, but it should truly be a last resort with certainty of the individual's guilt established beyond what they did, and the likelihood of the individual holding vital information established. Officially codifying something like that seems like it might have more downside than upside, so having it be officially unofficial could be better, but that seemed to lead to overuse/abuse. So I'm not sure what I think.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 14:52:56

jh, future war criminal

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 15:11:16

The US won't prosecute him so he's ok here, but it will really limit your international travel if every country you go tries to arrest you. No backpacking through Europe.

by **dajafi** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 16:11:46

The president can and always will pardon Jack Bauer. The only way to ensure against sadistic morons doing it for kicks or other reasons is to follow the Geneva Conventions, which we took the trouble to sign and all.

Probably more to the point, it doesn't work. Ask our best spies, or the Israelis.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 22:05:49

Elizabeth Warren is trying to shut down our government because she supports anarchy

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 22:55:14

She saw how politically well it worked for the republicans. Plus, she's actually trying to accomplish something...why are they adding this derivatives bullshit into this? Just take it out. Do you actually agree with that?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 23:32:37

pacino wrote:She saw how politically well it worked for the republicans. Plus, she's actually trying to accomplish something...why are they adding this derivatives bullshit into this? Just take it out. Do you actually agree with that?

I recall it not working politically well for Republicans. Her political senses must be more highly attuned than mine if going down that path seems like a good one.

Cruz et al. were also trying to accomplish something.

And I cannot pretend to have a well considered opinion on the merits of the rider, but similar legislation (written by a Dem - doc's congressman?) passed the House in 2013 as a stand alone measure with 70 Dem votes. It would seem it's a fairly well supported bit of bipartisan legislation that stalled in the Senate, so they tacked it onto the omnibus in negotiations.

I am legitimately excited about the campaign finance part though.

by **Werthless** » Thu Dec 11, 2014 23:41:38

Democracy!

by **pacino** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 00:14:41

The voters didn't give a shit about the shutdown, if you noticed. It was pretty pathetic.

I am not excited.

by **Doll Is Mine** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 02:09:37

jerseyhoya wrote:Elizabeth Warren is trying to shut down our government because she supports anarchy

Go Liz.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 05:15:31

Just because dems supported it doesn't make it a good piece of legislation. Both parties are in the back pockets of the finance industry. 2008-9 proved that.

If there's anyone I trust to work in the people's best interest when it comes to finance laws, it's Warren. The problem for her (and us) is that nearly the entire system is against her.

by **pacino** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 09:27:18

i'm unclear why it's a bad thing to be against swaps that have no real value to our economy except to potentially destroy it. what is the argument for allowing banks to take insured money and risk it with proven crapshoots and hten we foot the bill? and why add this into a CR? it's a weird, random addin to a bill that is about keeping the government open (in a bad way, but keeping it open), not about regulating or not regulating banks. it was seeking to change law, where she was seeking to keep it from being altered in an unrelated bill. Cruz was seeking to defund a law using a CR. it's a completely different thing that I'm not sure why is being equated to one another other than it's easy on the surface to say 'LOOK MA THEY BOTH DID IT!'.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:28:28

False equivalencies is Chapter 1 in the GOP handbook.

by **Werthless** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 13:00:22

Government shutdowns, when they are GOP lead:

screwing with people's lives

viewtopic.php_f=2&t=12042&p=1197859&hilit=shutdown#p1197859

Government shutdowns, when they are Dem lead:

pacino wrote: actually trying to accomplish something

You are right, they are not exactly the same. But how did I know that you would be supportive of this one?

by **pacino** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 13:06:56

The screwing with people's live part is the changing of derivative regulations. They could have simply not attempted to change implementation of a law with a CR.

If they're not the same, and you acknowledge that, it's not a both sides thing and it's not a me supporting the party I like thing (since both parties supported this). Your post is not a gotcha.

by **TomatoPie** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 13:54:11

drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:The argument - and I was hoping SOMEBODY (Doc) would get the Billy Preston reference - is that Monkey and others are focused on the growth of renewable energy instead of the total amount.

the total indicates where we are. the growth rates indicate where we're going, and relatively how fast.

Have a look at your Government's track record of trying to pick winners and losers in energy:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ene ... -subsidies

by **pacino** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 14:13:23

It's your government too

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 15:13:02

When Americans are asked about suspected terrorists “who may know details about future attacks against the U.S.”, only 24% are prepared to say the use of torture is “never” justified. Nearly as many, 20%, say the use of torture is “always” justified, while the remainder say it’s either “sometimes” (28%) or only “rarely” (18%) justified – a total of 66% who are unwilling to rule out torture completely. There has been little change in views from April, before the release of the report, when 22% said torture was never justified.

My fellow Americans, future war criminals.

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.